The visual system prioritizes locations near corners of surfaces (not just locations near a corner)

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 75, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 1748-1760

  Bertamini, Marco ^a   Helmy, Mai ^b   Bates, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b MENOUFIA UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

Author keywords

Contour curvature; Convexity; Corner enhancement effect; Figure ground

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; EYE FIXATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; SPACE PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84887571402     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-013-0514-1     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Attneave, F. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61, 183-193. doi: 10. 1037/h0054663.
2. Barenholtz, E., Cohen, E. H., Feldman, J., & Singh, M. (2003). Detection of change in shape: An advantage for concavities. Cognition, 89, 1-9.
3. Bertamini, M. (2006). Who owns the contour of a visual hole? Perception, 35, 883-894. doi: 10. 1068/p5496.
4. Bertamini, M. (2008). Detection of convexity and concavity in context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 775-789. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 34. 4. 775.
5. Bertamini, M. (2010). Sensitivity to reflection and translation is modulated by objectness. Perception, 39, 27-40.
6. Bertamini, M., & Croucher, C. J. (2003). The shape of holes. Cognition, 87(1), 33-54.
7. Bertamini, M., & Farrant, T. (2006). The perceived structural shape of thin (wire-like) objects is different from that of silhouettes. Perception, 35, 1679-1692.
8. Bertamini, M., & Helmy, M. S. (2012). The shape of a hole and that of the surface-with-hole cannot be analyzed separately. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 608-616. doi: 10. 3758/s13423-012-0265-3.
9. Bertamini, M., & Lawson, R. (2006). Visual search for a circular region perceived as a figure versus as a hole: Evidence of the importance of part structure. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 776-791. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193701.
10. Bertamini, M., & Mosca, F. (2004). Early computation of contour curvature and part structure: Evidence from holes. Perception, 33, 35-48.
11. Bertamini, M., & Wagemans, J. (2013). Processing convexity and concavity along a 2-D contour: Figure-ground, structural shape, and attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 191-207. doi: 10. 3758/s13423-012-0347-2.
12. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 94. 2. 115.
13. Bozkov, V., Bohdaneckỳ, Z., Radil-Weiss, T., Mitrani, L., & Yakimoff, N. (1982). Scanning open and closed polygons. Vision Research, 22, 721-725.
14. Burnham, B. R., & Neely, J. H. (2007). Involuntary capture of visual-spatial attention occurs for intersections, both real and "imagined. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 735-741. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196830.
15. Chen, Z. (2012). Object-based attention: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 784-802. doi: 10. 3758/s13414-012-0322-z.
16. Cohen, E. H., Barenholtz, E., Singh, M., & Feldman, J. (2005). What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape. Journal of Vision, 5(4): 3, 313-321. doi: 10. 1167/5. 4. 3.
17. Cole, G. G., Gellatly, A. R. H., & Blurton, A. (2001). Effect of object onset on the distribution of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1356-1368.
18. Cole, G. G., Kentridge, R. W., Gellatly, A. R. H., & Heywood, C. A. (2003). Detectability of onsets versus offsets in the change detection paradigm. Journal of Vision, 3(1), 3. doi: 10. 1167/3. 1. 3.
19. Cole, G. G., & Kuhn, G. (2009). Appearance matters: Attentional orienting by new objects in the precuing paradigm. Visual Cognition, 17, 755-776.
20. Cole, G. G., & Kuhn, G. (2010). Attentional capture by object appearance and disappearance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 147-159. doi: 10. 1080/17470210902853522.
21. Cole, G. G., Skarratt, P. A., & Gellatly, A. R. H. (2007). Object and spatial representations in the corner enhancement effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 400-412. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193761.
22. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36, 1827-1837. doi: 10. 1016/0042-6989(95)00294-4.
23. Egeth, H. E., & Yantis, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269-297. doi: 10. 1146/annurev. psych. 48. 1. 269.
24. Enns, J. T., Austen, E. L., Di Lollo, V., Rauschenberger, R., & Yantis, S. (2001). New objects dominate luminance transients in setting attentional priority. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1287-1302.
25. Guez, J. E., Marchal, P., Gargasson, J. F. L., Grall, Y., & O'Regan, J. K. (1994). Eye fixations near corners: Evidence for a centre of gravity calculation based on contrast, rather than luminance or curvature. Vision Research, 34, 1625-1635.
26. He, P., & Kowler, E. (1989). The role of location probability in the programming of saccades: Implications for "center-of-gravity" tendencies. Vision Research, 29, 1165-1181.
27. Hoffman, D. D., & Richards, W. (1984). Parts of recognition. Cognition, 18, 65-96.
28. Hoffman, D. D., & Singh, M. (1997). Salience of visual parts. Cognition, 63, 29-78.
29. Hoffman, J. E., & Subramaniam, B. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 57, 787-795. doi: 10. 3758/BF03206794.
30. Hulleman, J., te Winkel, W., & Boselie, F. (2000). Concavities as basic features in visual search: Evidence from search asymmetries. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 162-174.
31. Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187-203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Koenderink, J. J. (1984). What does the occluding contour tell us about solid shape? Perception, 13, 321-330.
33. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Harcourt.
34. Kowler, E., Anderson, E., Dosher, B., & Blaser, E. (1995). The role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vision Research, 35, 1897-1916. doi: 10. 1016/0042-6989(94)00279-U.
35. Lamote, C., & Wagemans, J. (1999). Rapid integration of contour fragments: From simple filling-in to parts-based shape description. Visual Cognition, 6, 345-361.
36. Mach, E. (1959). The analysis of sensations, and the relation of the physical to the psychical. New York, NY: Dover. Original work published 1897 in German.
37. Mamassian, P., & Goutcher, R. (2001). Prior knowledge on the illumination position. Cognition, 81, B1-B9.
38. Melcher, D., & Kowler, E. (1999). Shapes, surfaces and saccades. Vision Research, 39, 2929-2946.
39. Miyauchi, S., Hikosaka, O., & Shimojo, S. (1992). Visual attention field can be assessed by illusory line motion sensation. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 33(Suppl.), 1262.
40. Nelson, R. A., & Palmer, S. E. (2007). Familiar shapes attract attention in figure-ground displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 382-392. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193759.
41. Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25. doi: 10. 1080/00335558008248231.
43. Rensink, R. A., & Enns, J. T. (1998). Early completion of occluded objects. Vision Research, 38, 2489-2505.
44. Reppa, I., Schmidt, W. C., & Leek, E. C. (2012). Successes and failures in producing attentional object-based cueing effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 43-69. doi: 10. 3758/s13414-011-0211-x.
45. Ruda, H. (1998). The warped geometry of visual space near a line assessed using a hyperacuity displacement task. Spatial Vision, 11, 401-419.
46. Suzuki, S., & Cavanagh, P. (1997). Focused attention distorts visual space: An attentional repulsion effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 23, 443-463.
47. Vecera, S. P., Flevaris, A. V., & Filapek, J. C. (2004). Exogenous spatial attention influences figure-ground assignment. Psychological Science, 15, 20-26. doi: 10. 1111/j. 0963-7214. 2004. 01501004. x.
48. Vishwanath, D., & Kowler, E. (2003). Localization of shapes: Eye movements and perception compared. Vision Research, 43, 1637-1653.
49. Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. (1997). Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychological Review, 104, 90-122. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 104. 1. 90.
50. Wong, E., & Weisstein, N. (1982). A new perceptual context-superiority effect: Line segments are more visible against a figure than against a ground. Science, 218, 587-589.
51. Zhou, H., Friedman, H. S., & von der Heydt, R. (2000). Coding of border ownership in monkey visual cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 6594-6611.